Browse Film

Browse Notices

The Corps Mixed Signals

The state should never agree to cheap and fast. We've seen what that costs

Local, state and federal officials from Louisiana have stood their
ground against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' attempts to build
cheap and fast flood protection for the New Orleans area, but the Corps
seems to be much more efficient at lobbying Congress than it is at
building a flood protection system that works as promised. At stake is
the construction of proposed permanent pump stations at the end of the
17th Street, Orleans Avenue and London Avenue outfall canals. The Corps
favors the cheapest option, which provides less protection than two
other proposals favored by everyone else hereabouts. The Corps has dug
in its heels, saying the project will not move forward until the state
agrees to a partnership agreement for the cheapest option. Time is of
the essence, because the temporary pumps and floodgates installed on
the canals post-Katrina have a limited service life.

So far, the state's Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority (CPRA) has rightly refused to agree to a fast, cheap
"solution." The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East
(the consolidated East Bank levee board), the New Orleans City Council,
the Jefferson Parish Council, the Sewerage and Water Board and the
Louisiana Congressional delegation support CPRA's position. In late
July, U.S. Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter co-sponsored an
amendment to pending energy and water appropriations legislation that
would direct the Corps to conduct an 18-month peer-reviewed study with
cost estimates for various options. While the study is underway, the
Corps would start building the permanent pump stations, keeping them
"option neutral" until Congress decides which option to build.

Unfortunately, last Wednesday a U.S. House and Senate
conference committee rejected the Landrieu/Vitter amendment. Landrieu
blamed the Corps, saying, "The Corps' stubbornness ultimately subverted
the House-Senate negotiations and today the bureaucracy won the
battle." She has vowed to take the issue to President Barack Obama and
to amend other bills if possible.

The Corps says it has only been authorized by Congress
to build "Option 1," which relies on the same kind of engineering that
failed so miserably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Under Option
1, the permanent pumps would work only during storm events, when
adjacent floodgates would be closed. This requires the new pumps to
work in tandem with much older Sewerage and Water Board (S&WB)
pumps at the other ends of the canals — a plan that is fraught
with potential failures. During "normal" rainfalls, the floodgates
would remain open, and the older S&WB pumps would drain the city
through the poorly designed, weak floodwalls on the outfall canals.
This is hardly an option.

Option 2 would make the permanent outfall stations
"all-purpose" with year-round pumping. The outfall canals would be
deepened and paved so water could gravity-flow to the lakefront, making
some of the older pump stations no longer necessary. Option 2a includes
the improvements of Option 2 and adds a "pump to the river" plan
favored by many in Jefferson Parish.

After last week's vote, New Orleans is back to square
one and in need of an objective analysis of all three options. While
"the clock is ticking" on the temporary pumps (as Dan Bradley, the
Corps' Branch Chief for Permanent Pumps, noted in a recent press
release), the Corps is sending mixed signals. On one hand, Corps
bureaucrats in Washington lobby against local attempts to secure the
best-engineered option — rather than merely the cheapest. On the
other hand, Bradley and others are telling the consolidated levee board
that when construction begins, the Corps will make accommodations
— a heavier foundation and a lower sill — so the project
could be converted to Option 2 or 2A. Which signal should we
believe?

Going forward, the state should never agree to cheap and
fast. We've seen what that costs. Meanwhile, the Corps should
demonstrate its good faith by starting "option-neutral" construction
— and cease lobbying against attempts to build the best system
possible.